If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

I am stating my disbelief that there has ever been a human society that has conformed to your anarchic ideal, and giving an example of what I think is highly typical of tribal human societies. I think violence, oppression and manipulation has been part of the "human package" since before we were even human--along with our kinder, gentler instincts, which are just as inherent--and that whenever humans have found themselves in a situation where using violence would give them an advantage, at least some of them have chosen it.

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies.

Full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies.[16][17][18] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well.[16][19] Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership.[19]

In a few groups, such as the Haida of present-day British Columbia, lived in such a rich environment that they could remain sedentary or semi-nomadic, like many other Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest coast.

Violence in hunter-gatherer societies is usually rare, caused by grudges and vendettas.[19][clarification needed] Warfare over land was rare and with few fatalities as tribes could easily move to unoccupied or easily invaded areas. The land was seen as belonging to all and owned by none.

...

Hunting-gathering was the common human mode of subsistence throughout the Paleolithic, but the observation of current-day hunters and gatherers does not necessarily reflect Paleolithic societies; the hunter-gatherer cultures examined today have had much contact with modern civilization and do not represent "pristine" conditions found in uncontacted peoples.

Of course violence and oppression, greed and brutality, have always existed, but to what degree? When did it become ubiquitous in society? I think the argument can be made that this constant warlike behavior is still relatively new in terms of evolution and came with affluence and civilizations based on hierarchies and laws that conflict with the natural state of being.

There are just too many crevasses we could fall into, and so we have to keep making our tentative way up the nearest slopes, testing each step along the way to decide whether we are best off forging ahead or turning around and blazing a different trail.

I think this outlook is pessimistic and a bit superstitious. I believe that as easily as it was to condition people to fear and obey hierarchies, it would be even easier to undo the superstitions through peace and education and communication. I believe the harsh reality we live with today is learned behavior and can be just as easily unlearned. It's not an instant transition. But I do believe at this stage in technology and communications, we can make enormous leaps forward IF we want to. We do not have to cling to these barbaric traditions if we actually put effort in to reduce these silly superstitions that have been--literally--beaten into us over many generations. I think humans are smarter than this. I think having rulers and unrealistic societal pressures stunts our mental growth as a species. I think the human condition is self-imposed.

I think you underestimate, in your zeal--whose intentions I find entirely admirable, by the way, though I think it's not well-founded--how much work, and how many safeguards, it takes to hold us all together in a time when a few madmen given access to the wrong buttons could literally blow up the planet and everyone on it.

These [few] madmen only have power because we give it to them. If we stop feeding the beast, it will die. We empower these monsters by trading our freedom for "security," which we have never actually had. We only have what we believe to be a safer environment. How can that be true when our own "protectors" (police) kill us mercilessly and are never held accountable for it? I believe all of the luxuries of our culture are afforded by capitalists and that any service we get from rulers can easily be attained through voluntary exchanges. I am positive that at this point in time we would rebound from a stateless society IF people want to maintain the cushy lifestyles they have become accustomed to. I don't think we'd revert back to primitive times. I think we have reached a level where we can recover better and faster than any time in history and keep moving forward without the need for threats and violence. But it all starts with changing the minds of people. Education and truth are vital to our success. I believe that governments (and religions, etc.) keep us from the truths and reality and from achieving our potential.

No, it doesn't. I get the impression from some advocates of anarchism that they chafe under any sort of restrictions, no matter how reasonable, or how necessary, or how little they are materially affected. It often strikes me as a very childish sort of desire never to be opposed or prevented from anything one's heart might desire. From what you say this is not true of you, and so I say good. I don't think everyone is as mature.

Like I said, no rulers but rules are still crucial. Many team sports are played with rules, but there are no laws to enforce them. People, for the most part, engage in anarchism constantly. Every voluntary interaction they have is practicing anarchy. Think about all of the things we do voluntarily, which often includes NOT killing and stealing from others. If people were taught the non-aggression principle and natural rights as fervently as they are taught how to recite the pledge of allegiance, imagine how much more advanced we'd be.

I have already expressed a) my agreement that these sort of problems are real, and significant and b) that I disagree with your suggested approach for fixing them, because it is my belief it would likely do more harm than good. Feel free to provide evidence (not ideology or slogans) that disagrees with me, because I would happily change my mind. Believe me, I want to agree with you. But the facts as I see them currently don't warrant agreement, they suggest caution and incremental change.

Stop being so pessimistic.

I don't assume it would vanish--I have what I believe is a reasonable fear that it might, to the detriment of billions of people.

Yes. If we neglect the importance of education before becoming a stateless society, things could go terribly wrong. I wouldn't be upset if there were no governments tomorrow because I see all the greatness and joy in it and know how to function without it, but realistically I know that the majority of the world is still very dependent on their leaders for their very existence and wouldn't know how to handle absolute freedom when faced with it. We haven't put enough effort into survival as individuals or voluntary interaction. Most of what we have been taught revolves around collectivism and fear of hierarchies, both worldly and heavenly.

I believe that we can improve the system to the point where those laws that are arbitrary, unjust and restrictive of natural human behavior and ingenuity can be changed or eliminated to make them better.

I used to have this minarchist belief, but then I stopped making excuses. I don't believe governments, or anyone given special privileges, can ever be contained. I also don't think it's necessary. Why not go all the way? If we can evolve to the point of having righteous leaders, why is the government necessary at all? What is its purpose if not coercion and violence? Can't everything it does be done voluntarily? I believe so.

Would you do me the favor of summarizing it in your words so that I can better understand where you're coming from? I'd appreciate it, if you don't mind.

Freedom, to me, is having the choice of every action and exchange being voluntary while abiding by the non-aggression principle, which I believe to be nature's unspoken rule of peaceful existence. I believe that nature gives us our inalienable rights, they do not come from governments or religions or any other creature, and no man or selective group of people have the right to steer another or interfere in their life, nor do I believe the majority should have the right to decide for the minority. I believe all interactions should be optional and no one should be forced to do anything besides abide by the NAP. If they refuse, then I believe there are better, more efficient ways of dealing with offenders than the systems we have in place. I think we are still clinging to primitive rituals and we should really be beyond this insanity by now, but we continue to perpetuate it through supporting a failing system of governance that is brutal and unjust and largely unfair.

Yeah, on the surface American life seems pretty fantastic in comparison. But I can't relish in it knowing how it works. I feel like most of what we have been taught forces us to live in a state of ignorance while our tax dollars are killing millions of people around the world in for-profit wars and we are caging our fellow humans for RIDICULOUS and arbitrary laws based on archaic moral code created by imperfect human beings. I don't believe the ends justify the means. How selfish would it be to not care so long as my life is relatively safe and comfortable? We can do better than this.